Hey Chiefs fans,
In the Live Forum Mock, KC gave up this year's 3rd rounder, 4th rounder and next year's 1st rounder and 2nd rounder to JAX for the 11th overall pick in order to draft Cordarelle Patterson.

I wasn't even being a dick to the Raiders, I was just saying that there are a lot of holes on that team, and then Black Bolt the Mega Homer chimed in and got all personal!

Personal?? How is saying you all suck and we kicked your ass deuces getting personal?? Here is a copy and past of our initial conversation:

Originally Posted by vidae
I would be surprised if the Raiders are contending for anything except the first overall pick by 2015.

You mean like you all did last year? Have fun with your two rich left tackles and your "franchise" QB

Are you a Chefs player in disguise, because that's the only way this could ever possibly be construed as a personal attack?? I'll call the Wambulance for you, Chefs fan. I like you a lot, vidae, it's just that the franchise you cheerlead sucks despite winning a SB during the Cretaceous period. By the way, weren't you guys picked to win the division? You didn't win that, but you did win the honor of earning the #1 pick in the draft so congratulations.

I guess in 107 pages of a thread you can't stay on topic all the time... the last two pages seem to be all about the Raiders QB and cap situations and how they're better than the Chiefs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Hey Chiefs fans,
In the Live Forum Mock, KC gave up this year's 3rd rounder, 4th rounder and next year's 1st rounder and 2nd rounder to JAX for the 11th overall pick in order to draft Cordarelle Patterson.

Trading for quarterbacks has been quite popular this off-season, but are NFL teams being wise to do so? Recent history suggests otherwise.

This week's trades of Carson Palmer to the Arizona Cardinals and of Matt Flynn (pictured, far right) to the Oakland Raiders brought the total of projected starters acquired via trade to three this off-season, along with Kansas City's Alex Smith.

Notable quarterbacks such as John Elway and Brett Favre were traded by the teams that drafted them, before they had their greatest successes. But if Palmer, Flynn and Smith succeed in their first seasons with their new teams, it would buck a pretty clear trend in recent NFL history.

Since 1994, there have been 25 trades involving quarterbacks who started at least eight games for their new team the following season. Only two led their new teams to the postseason in the first year—Brad Johnson (1999 Redskins) and Steve McNair (2006 Ravens).

Some quarterbacks were successful, but struggled in their first season in a new city. Matt Hasselbeck went on to win five postseason games with the Seattle Seahawks and lead the team to Super Bowl XL. Trent Green had some success following a trade to the Kansas City Chiefs, and Matt Schaub and Jay Cutler remain upper-echelon quarterbacks with the Houston Texans and Chicago Bears, respectively, but have only three combined playoff victories with their new teams.

The failures of traded quarterbacks have far outweighed the successes, especially with over-the-hill QBs such as Brett Favre, who struggled down the stretch in his one season with the New York Jets, and Donovan McNabb, who struggled in his only season with the Washington Redskins, and later with the Minnesota Vikings. Both Palmer and Flynn were last traded within the past two seasons—and in both cases, the teams that traded for them gave up more than they got, while not achieving the results they were expecting.

Well duh. It's amazing to me how teams never learn their lesson with this. You can't recycle quarterbacks with a proven history of mediocrity and expect you can be the magician who turns him around. It doesn't work 98% of the time.

In a league that's so dependent on qb play, it baffles me that some teams just don't get it and keep trying to find that diamond in the rough.

that's a cute opinion. are you basing it on the two cities that've lost the team?

but hey, at least you beat someone last season. congrats.

---

on the other hand... it's weird to have a raiders fan around here who actually fits the stereotype. it's been too long.

Oh yeah, the fans gave up on the team and that's why they moved to LA. Then the LA fans gave up and forced the Raiders back on Oakland. Seriously, does the elevator make it to your top floor? The team moving has NOTHING to do with the fan base loyalty, it has something to do with the owner moving the team. And guess what? There are is still a huge fan base in LA. Oh, and we basically own half of San Diego's fan base. I can understand you being a big jealous, kitty cat.

Well duh. It's amazing to me how teams never learn their lesson with this. You can't recycle quarterbacks with a proven history of mediocrity and expect you can be the magician who turns him around. It doesn't work 98% of the time.

In a league that's so dependent on qb play, it baffles me that some teams just don't get it and keep trying to find that diamond in the rough.

You aren't talking about Matt Flynn, are you? Because of you are, Matt Flynn has never been a starter in the first place. How then could he be "recycled?" Also, was Kurt Warner recycled? How about this guy Rich Gannon? Heard of Brad Johnson? Oh wait, Jim Plunkett, I know you know that guy.

It all depends on if the expectations are realistic or not. Top tier QBs in their primes do not get traded. If a QB is traded, it's because either he isn't very accomplished or he was once great but past his prime.

In our case, the GM is under no illusions that Matt Flynn is our ticket to the superbowl. If he was, then we wouldn't have only needed to give up a 5th rounder for him. He is an unproven player who has shown some nice ability, period. Now, it would be nice if everyone else could figure than out and stop saying "he's not the answer."

You aren't talking about Matt Flynn, are you? Because of you are, Matt Flynn has never been a starter. How then could he be "recycled?" Also, was Kurt Warner recycled? How about this guy Rich Gannon? Heard of Brad Johnson? Oh wait, Jim Plunkett, I know you know that guy.

Considering this is his 3rd team, yeah, he's recycled.

And of all those guys you mentioned, only Kurt Warner was relevant bc he was after the rule changes in today's passing league. And he is a borderline HOFer retread. So yeah. Big difference btw him vs Flynn/Smith.

It's ok though. It's the offseason. I know you want to believe, and I don't blame you. I'd want to believe to.

And of all those guys you mentioned, only Kurt Warner was relevant bc he was after the rule changes in today's passing league. And he is a borderline HOFer retread. So yeah. Big difference btw him vs Flynn/Smith.

It's ok though. It's the offseason. I know you want to believe, and I don't blame you. I'd want to believe to.

Well believe then, brutha!! That's the point of the off season.

Seriously, my expectations are within reason. The odds are against Flynn being great, but at this point, we don't need him to be great. We need him, or Pryor, to be a functional QB while we continued to work things out.

Even if Matt Flynn is a slightly above average quarterback, it won't do much for Oakland this next season because that offense is lacking in skill players and Reggie isn't putting the quarterback in a position to be successful.

Yes, Flynn had some good games in Green Bay but I don't think he even has a James Jones caliber receiver to throw to; much less a Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, or Jermichael Finley as well.

Seriously, my expectations are within reason. The odds are against Flynn being great, but at this point, we don't need him to be great. We need him, or Pryor, to be a functional QB while we continued to work things out.

And next offseason it will be:

"Flynn wasn't bad! He just needs weapons and an OL and a good OC! Look what he had to work with!"

aka the same excuse for every qb who underperforms, which will result in delaying getting a qb bc there's a higher rated WR or LT on the board who can "help" Flynn do a better job, which will in turn continue the spiral of mediocrity and delay any chances of turning the franchise around.

We've seen this story a million times. It's the same story over and over and over again.

In a division with Peyton Manning, PEYTON MANNING, KC and Oakland think they can compete with proven mediocrity at qb. Yes. Brilliant. Bc that's worked so well against him throughout his career.

Even if Matt Flynn is a slightly above average quarterback, it won't do much for Oakland this next season because that offense is lacking in skill players and Reggie isn't putting the quarterback in a position to be successful.

Yes, Flynn had some good games in Green Bay but I don't think he even has a James Jones caliber receiver to throw to; much less a Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, or Jermichael Finley as well.

So what would you hae Reggie do this year? The team has MULTIPLE needs. LB is solved, but we still must address DE, S, DT, OG, and CB before skill positions. At least Flynn and Pryor have mobility.

"Flynn wasn't bad! He just needs weapons and an OL and a good OC! Look what he had to work with!"

aka the same excuse for every qb who underperforms, which will result in delaying getting a qb bc there's a higher rated WR or LT on the board who can "help" Flynn do a better job, which will in turn continue the spiral of mediocrity and delay any chances of turning the franchise around.

We've seen this story a million times. It's the same story over and over and over again.

In a division with Peyton Manning, PEYTON MANNING, KC and Oakland think they can compete with proven mediocrity at qb. Yes. Brilliant. Bc that's worked so well against him throughout his career.

Okay, so how do you go about getting a franchise QB? Be specific, when, where and who?

So what would you hae Reggie do this year? The team has MULTIPLE needs. LB is solved, but we still must address DE, S, DT, OG, and CB before skill positions. At least Flynn and Pryor have mobility.

Just to be clear: The Raiders need to find an entire defense, then move on to skill position players, and then get a franchise QB (if it's not Flynn, believe what you want on him, I won't get into it) and they'll be contending in 2 years. It's so simple. Why doesn't every team follow your plan of excellence? It's foolproof!

__________________We ALL bleed scarlet New York Giants Super Bowl 46 Champs
UNITED: I actually attend the college I root for

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalmerToCJ

BTW, if it's 3rd and 97... I'm throwing a screen pass to Brian Leonard and he will convert.

Okay, so how do you go about getting a franchise QB? Be specific, when, where and who?

Now. 1st round. Whoever is their highest rated qb on their board.

Yes, it really is that simple. When you need a qb, you get a qb. You can't keep waiting for next year. Every year we hear the same crap, this qb class isn't that good etc. It's all a ton of crap. That's what you pay scouts for, to find the best guy and draft him.

This qb class isn't as bad as people think. 2012 was a once in a generation type of qb class, you can't expect that every year.

Hey Chiefs fans,
In the Live Forum Mock, KC gave up this year's 3rd rounder, 4th rounder and next year's 1st rounder and 2nd rounder to JAX for the 11th overall pick in order to draft Cordarelle Patterson.

You likey?

That is a pretty awful trade. No GM would ever realistically do that in a million years.

So Tyson Clabo got cut by the Falcons... I think this hurts the chances that Miami would want to trade for Albert. I have felt like the minute they sign a RT, it's a given that Martin switches to LT (even though he's not great) and they're out of the market. I definitely wouldn't suggest signing a guy as a defensive move, but Clabo is going to be better at playing RT than Fisher or Joeckel will, having to switch sides and adjust to the NFL at the same time. Might make sense if they can work it in with the cap situation. I wonder how much the cost of Albert's franchise tag this season and maybe needing to get rid of that plays into the whole situation.

Well duh. It's amazing to me how teams never learn their lesson with this. You can't recycle quarterbacks with a proven history of mediocrity and expect you can be the magician who turns him around. It doesn't work 98% of the time.

In a league that's so dependent on qb play, it baffles me that some teams just don't get it and keep trying to find that diamond in the rough.

It's very likely that the decision-makers on the Raiders, Cardinals, and Chiefs don't believe in any of the quarterbacks in the draft enough to risk their jobs over. It's easy to say that these teams should draft a guy like Geno Smith when your job isn't on the line. If you draft a quarterback #1 (or even in the top 10) and he fails, you aren't going to get the opportunity to draft another.

It's very likely that the decision-makers on the Raiders, Cardinals, and Chiefs don't believe in any of the quarterbacks in the draft enough to risk their jobs over. It's easy to say that these teams should draft a guy like Geno Smith when your job isn't on the line. If you draft a quarterback #1 (or even in the top 10) and he fails, you aren't going to get the opportunity to draft another.

In all 3 of their situations, they would get a pass on drafting a QB this year. The riskier career move this year would be to NOT draft a QB. Especially if Any of the top 3-5 guys turn out to be good and the guys they traded for continue to be the guys they traded for.

If Geno Smith is any good and/or Alex Smith isn't Drew Brees/Rich Gannon, Dorsey and Reid should be fired. Bottom ******* line.

To clarify: Geno Smith (& Barkley & Nassib) better suck and Alex Smith better be Drew Brees/Rich Gannon. Even if Alex is that good, if Geno is good the Chiefs ****** up. Even if Geno sucks, if Alex doesn't take that huge step, the Chiefs ****** up.

It's very likely that the decision-makers on the Raiders, Cardinals, and Chiefs don't believe in any of the quarterbacks in the draft enough to risk their jobs over. It's easy to say that these teams should draft a guy like Geno Smith when your job isn't on the line. If you draft a quarterback #1 (or even in the top 10) and he fails, you aren't going to get the opportunity to draft another.

I feel like this notion has become way overblown. I'm sure a study could be done but I really think failed free-agent QB's/failed non-1st round QB's/the inability to bring in a successful long-term starter at get coaches and management fired quicker than than top QB's picked in the top 10. If anything, drafting a QB in the first buys coaches time because there is an expectation that you want to keep your coach and his highly drafted QB together even through the early lumps. And management is more apt to be patient on that young QB, especially when it's the guy they were responsible for drafting. And anyway, scared money don't make money.

The Flynn and Kolb signings will have little impact on whether or not those teams will take a QB early if given the opportunity. Had they not signed those guys they would have been forced to take a QB in the early rounds because both teams had no one else.